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" …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. George Nacht

    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....

  2. Disco-Legend-Zeke

    In Most...

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

  3. Anonymous Coward

    Counter sue?

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

  4. Scott 19


    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?

  5. Anonymous Coward


    emailed to wife.

    Get down or else.

    Anon for obvious reasons.

    1. T.a.f.T.

      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.

      1. Solomon Grundy

        Not Sex

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

  6. Sir Barry

    Doobie doop da doop doop

    Is she ugly then?

  7. Ralthor


    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.

  8. James Micallef Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Sensible decision

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

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton


    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...

    1. Solomon Grundy

      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.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm French...

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

  11. Magnus_Pym

    goose = gander but goose != gander

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

  12. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Exchange role of female and male

    ...see law going the other way.

  13. mark 63 Silver badge
    Paris Hilton


    maybe we should reserve judgement in the absence of pictures

  14. Number6


    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. Lord Elpuss Silver badge


      New keyboard please...

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Frakk me

    Whatever next?

  16. Wortel

    And yet

    they mock G-Spot probing.

  17. Anonymous Coward

    Sounds like she shafted him

    or not as the case may be.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Well she's certainly screwed him now!

  19. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Thomas 4
      IT Angle


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

  20. Anonymous Coward
    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.

  21. Purlieu


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

  22. Paul_Murphy

    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.


  23. Conor

    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!

  24. Anonymous Coward
    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.

  25. peyton?

    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?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Hasn't it been drilled into everyone"

      au contraire, c'est le problème!

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      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.

    3. Boring Bob

      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.

    4. nyelvmark

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

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

    5. Daniel B.

      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???

    6. Marina

      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.

    7. DanceMan
      Paris Hilton

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

      but you dare not say, "Non."

      Paris, because she allegedly doesn't say no.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


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

    Presumably that made more sense in French.

    1. Boring Bob

      Double what?

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

      1. Intractable Potsherd 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.

  27. Anonymous Coward

    Body parts

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

    Icon, because ...

  28. Kubla Cant Silver badge

    Call in an expert

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

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Judge D. Strauss-Kahn presiding ...

    Good to see him back in employment

  30. big_Jim


    From another place.

    This story is worthless without pictures.

  31. lotus49

    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.

    1. Old Handle

      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.

    2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge


      ... 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.

  32. Robin 1


    One simple answer. Outsource.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      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.

  34. Jason Bassford

    Sex can't be a requirement....

    What if, through physical handicap, sex in the traditional form is impossible? I don't think you'd say that it would be impossible for those two people to get married because of that. (Maybe they'd be able to use a special "exemption" form!)

    The problem with this story is not that they got divorced (or even had their marriage annulled for some strange clause about non-performance) - all of which, to one degree or another, could be understandable. The problem is that the man got FINED. Really? Maybe in a divorce settlement some kind of consideration could be made in terms of recompense (she gets the car, some alimony, etc., and the lack of sex is a contributing factor) - but normally a fine means that you're violating a rule or law. In this case, the penalty should be ... not being married any more. I don't see how anybody can be actually fined for not having sex.

    In fact, getting money for the hardship (Lack of it...?) of celibacy sounds more like the result of a straight lawsuit (mental / emotional anguish) than anything else. (Kind of like how I could sue somebody for banging pots and pans against my ears for years.) But for the judge to site a marriage clause - the only result of failing to meet it should result in divorce, not a fine - seems absurd. Unless there actually is a French marriage clause that says if you don't perform you get fined? I don't think so.

    1. lotus49

      Sex can (and in fact is) be a requirement

      In English law a marriage is voidable (rather than actually being void but it is capable of being annulled at any time) "if the marriage has not been consummated due to incapacity of either you or your spouse to do so; " so yes, sex is a requirement.

      Further, for a Roman Catholic marriage, the marriage can be annulled by the Pope at any time for non-consummation regardless of the reason.

      In neither case is physical handicap a valid reason for preventing an application for annulment being granted either by the courts or the Pope as appropriate.

      Sex is central to marriage in the eyes of English law, the Catholic Church and in almost all cultures around the world. You may not believe that to be appropriate, but that's how it is.

  35. Sam 15

    Lotus49 he say..

    "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."

    You may think so, but check with any Bride of Christ.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not fined

    Misleading Headline - he wasn't fined, he was sued for damages.

    Fines are paid to the state, damages are paid to the plaintiff. In this case his missus was the plaintiff, who was presumably suffering from a damaged ego.

  37. Marketing Hack Silver badge

    I can think of a few women....

    that I would gladly pay 10,000 Euros to avoid having sex with!!!

  38. Eric Hood

    Wife swap time.

    Perhaps the noisy ASBO woman can swap with the french lady.

  39. Rupert Rumblebum

    Oui Mon Ami

    So, the greatest (self proclaimed) lovers are failing in their duties. What shall we see next? Yanks who only proclaim on subjects where they can display knowledge? Religious tolerance from other than ones own beliefs? Truth from politicians? A non grasping politician? No, I believe in this as much as I believe in Nirvana. My own views about Frogs have not, and never will, change but for a judge to challenge a mans right to refuse sex to his partner should be paramount or a chargeless supply of analgesics be made available to counter their headaches, for both sides I add. I have three points less tolerance for Frogs than I do politicians, if that gives you any clues.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019